Re: Materialized views and unique indexes
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Materialized views and unique indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAB7nPqRd_LCWTZUogjrBF4a4doMTM_9viOp3BmzrE=ZwjWniqg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Materialized views and unique indexes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
-- Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:A unique constraint can allow join elimination, so I'm thinking that
> On 03/08/2013 10:55 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Also, as it is not mandatory for a unique index to be a constraint, I
>> think that we should block the creation of unique indexes too to avoid
>> any problems. Any suggestions?
> How much does the planner benefit from the implied constraint of a
> unique index? I almost wonder if it should be allowed at the cost of
> making the refresh of a matview that fails to comply an error.
disallowing them is a bad idea (not to mention that it'd be a
considerable wart in the code to block them for matviews only).
Fair argument.
The error message at refresh step should be more explicit though. I still have the feeling that users might be lost if a constraint introduced on matviews is failing during refresh with the current error message.
The error message at refresh step should be more explicit though. I still have the feeling that users might be lost if a constraint introduced on matviews is failing during refresh with the current error message.
Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: